1. Challenge to the constitutionality of a State Act regulating diploma holders in medicine and rural health care in light of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
BAHARUL ISLAM & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 502-503 OF 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 32592-32593 of 2015, TC (C) NO. 25 OF 2018, TC (C) NO. 24 OF 2018
Decided on : 24-01-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv. Mr. Md Sharuk Ali, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shreya, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pathak, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Deep Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Arnav Singh Deo, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv. Mr. Sharathj Nambiar, ADv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj S. Udupa, ADv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., ADv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR Mr. V.K. Kanna, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv. Mr. Md Sharuk Ali, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shreya, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pathak, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Deep Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Arnav Singh Deo, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv. Mr. Sharathj Nambiar, ADv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj S. Udupa, ADv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., ADv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR Mr. V.K. Kanna, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Adv.
State legislation on medical education under Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I. The State lacks legislative competence to set standards for allopathic medicine or authorize its practice by underqualified persons, as such standards are exclusively determined by Parliament under the IMC Act, 1956.
Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 10A and 15 - Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 - Legislative competence - Assam Act struck down for being unconstitutional as it conflicted with Central Act, which governs medical education standards. (Paras 25-26)
(B) Legislation - Principal of occupied field - State cannot legislate in areas where Central Act is applicable, and any State law that conflicts with it is void. (Paras 22-24)
(C) Public health - Improvement as a duty of the state - Policies must ensure equitable access to qualified healthcare providers regardless of geographical disparities. (Paras 25)
Facts of the case:
Appellants contested the Gauhati High Court's decision which struck down the Assam Act declaring it unconstitutional for conflicting with the Indian Medical Council Act. The Assam Act aimed to regulate medical qualifications for practitioners in rural health care, establishing a diploma system without permission from the Central Government.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the High Court's decision, determining that the Assam Act was void for lacking legislative competence as it overlapped with the Central legislation in establishing medical standards.
Issues: The core questions pertained to the validity of the Assam Act in relation to the Indian Medical Council Act and whether the Assam Act adequately addressed the needs of rural healthcare.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Assam Act's provisions on qualifications and practice conflicted with the Indian Medical Council Act’s standards, nullifying its legal standing.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
administrative law
- statutory interpretation
- medical law
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over legislative competence under Entry 25 List III versus the Union's exclusive power to determine medical standards under Entry 66 List I. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 )
3. The IMC Act is a complete code for modern medicine standards; State laws cannot lower these standards or bypass Central permission for medical courses. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 )
4. State legislation under Entry 25 List III must yield to Parliamentary laws enacted under Entry 66 List I regarding coordination and determination of medical standards. (Para 20 , 25 )
5. Appeals dismissed; the 2004 State Act declared null and void for lack of legislative competence, while the 2015 State Act upheld as valid. (Para 22 , 25 , 26 )
6. How does the relationship between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III affect State legislative competence?
Entry 25 of the Concurrent List is subject to Entry 66 of the Union List. This means the field of coordination and determination of standards in higher education is reserved for Parliament; any State law in this field must yield to Parliamentary law. (Para 16 , 25 )
7. Can a State Legislature determine standards for allopathic medicine or open medical courses without Central permission?
No. The power to determine standards for modern scientific medicine and recognize medical institutions falls exclusively under Entry 66 List I. State laws conflicting with the IMC Act's standards are null and void for lack of legislative competence. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 )
8. Can a State Legislature validate a previously struck-down law by enacting new legislation that removes the basis of the court's decision?
Yes. A competent legislature can render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law that fundamentally alters the conditions or removes the substratum on which the previous decision was based, provided it does not transgress other constitutional limitations. (Para 22 )
9. Why was the 2015 Act valid while the 2004 Act was declared null and void?
The 2004 Act allowed diploma holders to practice allopathic medicine, conflicting with IMC standards. The 2015 Act designated them as Community Health Professionals (paramedics), which does not conflict with the IMC Act's standards for medical practitioners. (Para 22 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
| INDEX | ||
| Sl. No. | Particulars | |
| 1. | Brief facts of the case | |
| 2. | Bird’s Eye View of the controversy | |
| 3. | Submissions on behalf of the appellants | |
| 4. | Arguments on behalf of R-1 | |
| 5. | Arguments on behalf of R-7 | |
| 6. | Submissions on behalf of the State of Assam | |
| 7. | Points for consideration | |
| 8. | Constitutional Scheme | |
| 9. | Contentions on behalf of the UOI | |
| 10. | Interplay between Entry 66 of List 1 and Entry 25 of List III | |
| 11. | Relevant provisions of Indian MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT , 1956 | |
| 12. | Relevant provisions of Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act , 2004 | |
| 13. | A comparative table and analysis of the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the Assam Act | |
| 14. | Triology of cases | |
| 15. | Conclusions: |
Leave granted.
2. In these appeals, the appellants have assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5789/2005, whereby the High Court by allowing the Writ Petition struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act , 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Assam Act’ or the ‘State Act’ for the sake of brevity) which was enacted by the Assam State Legislature.
Brief facts of the case:
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals and transferred cases, in a nutshell are that on 18.09.2004, the Assam Legislature enacted the Assam Act. The said Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of a regulatory authority in the State of Assam to register the Diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care (“DMRHC”), to regulate their practice in medicine in rural areas and to regulate the opening of medical institutions to impart education and training for the course of Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care.
3.1. On 23.06.2005, the Director, Medical Education, State of Assam, published an advertisement in the Assam Tribune inviting applications from eligible candidates seeking admissions in the three-year course of Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care in the Medical Institute, Jorhat, for the session starting in the year 2005.
3.2. The Indian Medical Association, Assam State Branch, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 5789 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the Gauhati High Court, assailing the validity of the Assam Act and the aforesaid advertisement. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, the appellants herein were admitted in the First year of the three-year Diploma Course in Medicine and Rural Health Care in the Medical Institute, Jorhat, (‘Jorhat Medical Institute’ for the sake of convenience) for the sessions 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 respectively, pursuant to the selection process.
3.3. Having regard to the fact that the Jorhat Medical Institute was created as envisaged under the State Act, and about four-hundred students had been admitted to the diploma course and awarded certificates on having passed the Course, State of Assam made a plea for impleadment of the Regulatory Authority, the Jorhat Medical Institute and the persons who had obtained diploma certificates and had been engaged as Rural Health Practitioners on the basis of such qualification.
3.4. By the impugned order dated 19.09.2014, the High Court rejected the State’s plea for impleadment of the Regulatory Authority, the Jorhat Medical Institute and the persons who had obtained diploma certificates from the said Institute during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court.
3.5. The pertinent findings of the High Court, in the impugned order dated 19.09.2014 may be summarized as under:
i) That the State had voluntarily assumed the risk of proceeding with the admission process under the State Act, even after a challenge was made to the vires of said Act before the High Court.
ii) The fact that there wa
